turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Louis XVI of France
That's an interesting twist, actually. When the French helped us out, Quebec wasn't even on their minds. They'd given that up in the 7yrs War. They were after North Africa. In this one, there is a possibility of getting French Atlantis back. TR 20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC) :It is, though I believe you mean Caribbean islands, not North Africa. That was still the domain of the Ottoman beys, Muslim princes and the like. :Have no idea how the French will react, yet. So far the French Atlanteans still resent being added to the British empire, the Atlanteans for swarming their lands, and the British for helping the Atlanteans then and invading French Atlantis now. Jelay14 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) :You're right. African conflict was much smaller and more to the west. Not sure where I came up with North Africa. Probably added Minorca to Africa proper in my mind's eye or something. TR 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC) French Revolution probably presumptuous of me, but I went ahead and made the French Revolution a red link, on the theory that it will at least be mentioned in LA. TR 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Regicide While making a joke about how the dealership from which I'm buying a car this week is treating me like a king, and invoking this guy and Nicholas II (in an edit which I apparently failed to save before navigating away, grr) I realized that if we were to throw Mary Queen of Scots into the mix alongside 'em, we would have the requisite three victims of regicide, and by shaking the branches on some of the fantasy novels we could shape that category up nicely. Offhand I can already think of Raneiro and what's-his-name, the Makuraner King of Kings whom Rhavas conquered. Old Hamlet, if we resume writing up articles on Hamlet, which seems less important now that the rash of bardolating brought on by WHGTY has cooled. We could have added Avram if HT had made the War Between the Provinces end properly instead of having the one soldier suddenly declare he was a she and calling it a day--What a lame ending that was. Richard I could go either way depending on whether our definition of regicide is merely someone who died by another's hand while wearing a crown or if we'd require a more political motivation--The Lionheart was on the battlefield playing a combatant role, so he was a legitimate target. Plenty of Roman emperors were assassinated and some of them might rate articles at some point. If we ever turn up that stray reference to a Lizard who killed an Emperor . . . though I believe that was merely an assassination attempt, now that I think of it. Turtle Fan 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :Most definitions tend not to count monarchs killed on the battlefield as regicides--they're on the field of battle, they are fair game as you said. It's not always the goal to kill the monarch in battle either; capture sometimes has its virtues. So if we limit it to either assassinated or "legally" executed, we have Louis 16, Mary, Nicholas, Charles I for sure for historicals, Raniero for fictionals, and we can then review some of the Caesars. TR 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::Hot damn! Let's do it. Turtle Fan 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::I submit we call the category "Victims of Regicide", as opposed to simply "Regicides", as regicide can refer to the act, the victim, or the perp. TR 04:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Sounds fine to me. ::::You know, I had the thought that Raneiro might not meet the narrow definition of a victim of regicide. Mary, Charles, Louis and Nicholas were all acknowledged to have been monarchs by their executioners, if not at the times of their respective deaths then at some point in their lives. The Unkerlanters, though, denied that Raneiro had ever been a king. Swemmel kept calling him either the "pretender" or the "usurper." I believe it was the latter, and Kyot was the pretender--Kyot by the way can also be in this new category if we decide such semantics don't matter, which is the way I'm leaning. Thought I'd ask the lawyer, though. Turtle Fan 04:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Raniero--I'm leaning yes as at least Algarve recognized him. Thin to the point of non-existant, I admit. Kyot is perhaps more clear-cut. Some Unkerlanters had to recognize him since there was a civil war. TR 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Stuart vs. Bourbon You know, we do have three Bourbons at this point. Louis 16, Louis XV, and Charles III of Spain. TR 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :He was certainly not a Stuart monarch, but he did have a blood connection to the Stuarts, descending from them directly. Regicide reminded me that Mary's best-known descendant shared her fate. We could make Bourbons a category, too, no doubt. And Louis XVI can double-count: He's a scion of multiple families, like everyone else. If Junior Enos's younger sister had borne George Galtier children, for instance, those children would be in both the Enos and Galtier categories. Turtle Fan 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::Forgot I'd floated the Bourbon idea. Growth potential seems nil for now. TR 19:29, October 22, 2009 (UTC) Off topic Does anyone know of any kickass Louis XVI alternate histories out there? I've read the ones in If It Had Happened Otherwise but they're pretty brief and bare-bones, only describing the situation generally, without much character development or specific details.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:20, November 4, 2015 (UTC) :I do not. This might help: uchronia.net. TR (talk) 06:30, November 4, 2015 (UTC) Ousted by a coup I know that Wikipedia has Louis listed in the "ousted by a coup" category, but I think since he and his family were toppled by a popular uprising (that is a revolution) and not by a group of pissy elites, I disagree with their categorization, and therefore don't think we should keep him here. As an aside, they also list Nicholas II, which I disagree with for similar reasons. Perhaps we should create "leaders outsed by/took power by a revolution". TR (talk) 18:21, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :I have become (perhaps too) hasty with Jonathan. I saw him throwing these in willy-nilly and just reversed them before I saw this. I will think about it but currently tend to agree with you suggestion of "ousted/too power by revolution". ML4E (talk) 18:49, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::My understanding of a revolution has always been that it brings in a new form of government altogether. Simply replacing one dynasty with another, or one branch within a dynasty with another, does not qualify. China is a textbook example here: The KMT overthrowing the Qing was a revolution; the Qing overthrowing the Ming, and the Ming the Yuan etc, were not. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:29, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :::Okay, but to my mind a coup is a limited action. I suppose what you are describing is change in rulers through a civil war. You could have a coup that failed but the plotters escaped and raised an army leading to a civil war. For that matter, you could also have a successful coup but the former leader escaped and that too leads to civil war. ML4E (talk) 23:05, January 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::Civil war works. Conquest may also work: The Qing came from outside China, after all. You might also want to call it a revolt. I agree most of these examples are too large scale to be described as coups.